10 Jun
2022
10 Jun
'22
10:33 a.m.
Dear developer,
we have a question about the reasons of the changes made in this commit to Kamailio module
ims_registrar_scscf
commit 23341c60519bd3e8eb91974c7aca0b283735665e
Author: Aleksandar Yosifov alexyosifov(a)gmail.com
Date: Thu May 7 15:51:34 2020 +0300
ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK
- Prevent sending of multiple contacts in 200OK reply
for UE Re-Registration. Now S-CSCF replies with the
exact contact for Re-Registration.
We read in Section 10.3 "Processing REGISTER Requests" of the RFC3261 (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3261#section-10.3 ) :
8. The registrar returns a 200 (OK) response. The response MUST contain Contact header
field values enumerating all current bindings.
We have a test case where for one single IMPU there are two different consecutive REGISTER
using different combination of IP/port.
Running our testcase on a version previous your commit, the 200OK of the second
registration lists 2 bindings (correctly, as we expect by the RFC). After your commit, in
this testcase, the 200OK lists only one binding. It seems that the changes in your commit
do not match the RFC specifications. Can you please explain why these changes have been
made?
Thanks and Kind Regards,
13 Jun
13 Jun
11:11 p.m.
Hello,
I think you are right; a registrar should respond with multiple bindings in case of
multiple bindings.
There might be a good reason for this change, maybe Aleksandar can comment.
But with my current information I would say it should be probably made configurable;
keeping the previous behaviour according to the standard as default.
Cheers,
Henning
--
Henning Westerholt - https://skalatan.de/blog/
Kamailio services - https://gilawa.com
-----Original Message-----
From: sr-dev <sr-dev-bounces(a)lists.kamailio.org> On Behalf Of Scherney Theodor
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 9:34 AM
To: sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org
Subject: [sr-dev] - ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK
Dear developer,
we have a question about the reasons of the changes made in this commit to Kamailio module
ims_registrar_scscf
commit 23341c60519bd3e8eb91974c7aca0b283735665e
Author: Aleksandar Yosifov alexyosifov(a)gmail.com
Date: Thu May 7 15:51:34 2020 +0300
ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK
- Prevent sending of multiple contacts in 200OK reply
for UE Re-Registration. Now S-CSCF replies with the
exact contact for Re-Registration.
We read in Section 10.3 "Processing REGISTER Requests" of the RFC3261 (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3261#section-10.3 ) :
8. The registrar returns a 200 (OK) response. The response MUST contain Contact header
field values enumerating all current bindings.
We have a test case where for one single IMPU there are two different consecutive REGISTER
using different combination of IP/port.
Running our testcase on a version previous your commit, the 200OK of the second
registration lists 2 bindings (correctly, as we expect by the RFC). After your commit, in
this testcase, the 200OK lists only one binding. It seems that the changes in your commit
do not match the RFC specifications. Can you please explain why these changes have been
made?
Thanks and Kind Regards,
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
14 Jun
14 Jun
5:57 p.m.
Hi all,
The changes were made a long time ago. What I can say is that I confirm
with both of you. I will add a new option and return the original behaviour
following the RFC.
BR
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 11:12 PM Henning Westerholt <hw(a)gilawa.com> wrote:
Hello,
I think you are right; a registrar should respond with multiple bindings
in case of multiple bindings.
There might be a good reason for this change, maybe Aleksandar can comment.
But with my current information I would say it should be probably made
configurable; keeping the previous behaviour according to the standard as
default.
Cheers,
Henning
--
Henning Westerholt - https://skalatan.de/blog/
Kamailio services - https://gilawa.com
-----Original Message-----
From: sr-dev <sr-dev-bounces(a)lists.kamailio.org> On Behalf Of Scherney
Theodor
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 9:34 AM
To: sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org
Subject: [sr-dev] - ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK
Dear developer,
we have a question about the reasons of the changes made in this commit to
Kamailio module ims_registrar_scscf
commit 23341c60519bd3e8eb91974c7aca0b283735665e
Author: Aleksandar Yosifov alexyosifov(a)gmail.com
Date: Thu May 7 15:51:34 2020 +0300
ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK
- Prevent sending of multiple contacts in 200OK reply
for UE Re-Registration. Now S-CSCF replies with the
exact contact for Re-Registration.
We read in Section 10.3 "Processing REGISTER Requests" of the RFC3261 (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3261#section-10.3 ) :
8. The registrar returns a 200 (OK) response. The response MUST contain
Contact header field values enumerating all current bindings.
We have a test case where for one single IMPU there are two different
consecutive REGISTER using different combination of IP/port.
Running our testcase on a version previous your commit, the 200OK of the
second registration lists 2 bindings (correctly, as we expect by the RFC).
After your commit, in this testcase, the 200OK lists only one binding. It
seems that the changes in your commit do not match the RFC specifications.
Can you please explain why these changes have been made?
Thanks and Kind Regards,
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List
sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
8:58 p.m.
For greater flexibility, the option should not be a module param,
instead a flag for save, so the two options can be used
simultaneously.
Also, all the functions provided by the ims_registrar_scscf should
have the "scscf_" prefix, just like the ims_registrar_pcscf module to
avoid overlapping with the generic registrar module.
-ovidiu
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 10:59 AM Aleksandar Yosifov
<a.v.yosifov(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
The changes were made a long time ago. What I can say is that I confirm with both of you.
I will add a new option and return the original behaviour following the RFC.
BR
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 11:12 PM Henning Westerholt <hw(a)gilawa.com> wrote:
--
VoIP Embedded, Inc.
http://www.voipembedded.com
Hello,
I think you are right; a registrar should respond with multiple bindings in case of
multiple bindings.
There might be a good reason for this change, maybe Aleksandar can comment.
But with my current information I would say it should be probably made configurable;
keeping the previous behaviour according to the standard as default.
Cheers,
Henning
--
Henning Westerholt - https://skalatan.de/blog/
Kamailio services - https://gilawa.com
-----Original Message-----
From: sr-dev <sr-dev-bounces(a)lists.kamailio.org> On Behalf Of Scherney Theodor
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 9:34 AM
To: sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org
Subject: [sr-dev] - ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK
Dear developer,
we have a question about the reasons of the changes made in this commit to Kamailio
module ims_registrar_scscf
commit 23341c60519bd3e8eb91974c7aca0b283735665e
Author: Aleksandar Yosifov alexyosifov(a)gmail.com
Date: Thu May 7 15:51:34 2020 +0300
ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK
- Prevent sending of multiple contacts in 200OK reply
for UE Re-Registration. Now S-CSCF replies with the
exact contact for Re-Registration.
We read in Section 10.3 "Processing REGISTER Requests" of the RFC3261 (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3261#section-10.3 ) :
8. The registrar returns a 200 (OK) response. The response MUST contain Contact header
field values enumerating all current bindings.
We have a test case where for one single IMPU there are two different consecutive
REGISTER using different combination of IP/port.
Running our testcase on a version previous your commit, the 200OK of the second
registration lists 2 bindings (correctly, as we expect by the RFC). After your commit, in
this testcase, the 200OK lists only one binding. It seems that the changes in your commit
do not match the RFC specifications. Can you please explain why these changes have been
made?
Thanks and Kind Regards,
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List
sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List
sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
20 Jun
20 Jun
12:29 p.m.
Hi,
Thanks!
Can you please give me details about the commit, to fall back to that changes.
BR
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: sr-dev <sr-dev-bounces(a)lists.kamailio.org> Im Auftrag von Ovidiu Sas
Gesendet: Dienstag, 14. Juni 2022 19:58
An: Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List <sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org>
Cc: Aleksandar Yosifov <alexyosifov(a)gmail.com>
Betreff: Re: [sr-dev] - ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK
[You don't often get email from osas(a)voipembedded.com. Learn why this is important at
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
For greater flexibility, the option should not be a module param, instead a flag for save,
so the two options can be used simultaneously.
Also, all the functions provided by the ims_registrar_scscf should have the
"scscf_" prefix, just like the ims_registrar_pcscf module to avoid overlapping
with the generic registrar module.
-ovidiu
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 10:59 AM Aleksandar Yosifov <a.v.yosifov(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
The changes were made a long time ago. What I can say is that I confirm with both of you.
I will add a new option and return the original behaviour following the RFC.
BR
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 11:12 PM Henning Westerholt <hw(a)gilawa.com> wrote:
--
VoIP Embedded, Inc.
https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.voipem…
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.kam…
Hello,
I think you are right; a registrar should respond with multiple bindings in case of
multiple bindings.
There might be a good reason for this change, maybe Aleksandar can comment.
But with my current information I would say it should be probably made configurable;
keeping the previous behaviour according to the standard as default.
Cheers,
Henning
--
Henning Westerholt -
https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fska
latan.de%2Fblog%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctheodor.scherney%40kontron.com%
7C500060a09bf447dadf3f08da4e2f98b0%7C8c9d3c973fd941c8a2b1646f3942daf1
%7C0%7C0%7C637908263631287730%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjA
wMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&a
mp;sdata=UZfXR2G5v9MMjogqTCPes%2Blx%2FBTcJTrzA9082rIFv%2Fo%3D&res
erved=0 Kamailio services -
https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgil
awa.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctheodor.scherney%40kontron.com%7C500060
a09bf447dadf3f08da4e2f98b0%7C8c9d3c973fd941c8a2b1646f3942daf1%7C0%7C0
%7C637908263631287730%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJ
QIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata
=yReM%2FnleLQ%2F6Ij2FVnI%2B3C8gmb7JYBjQRSw2OujcIeo%3D&reserved=0
-----Original Message-----
From: sr-dev <sr-dev-bounces(a)lists.kamailio.org> On Behalf Of
Scherney Theodor
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 9:34 AM
To: sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org
Subject: [sr-dev] - ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in
200OK
Dear developer,
we have a question about the reasons of the changes made in this
commit to Kamailio module ims_registrar_scscf
commit 23341c60519bd3e8eb91974c7aca0b283735665e
Author: Aleksandar Yosifov alexyosifov(a)gmail.com
Date: Thu May 7 15:51:34 2020 +0300
ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK
- Prevent sending of multiple contacts in 200OK reply
for UE Re-Registration. Now S-CSCF replies with the
exact contact for Re-Registration.
We read in Section 10.3 "Processing REGISTER Requests" of the RFC3261 (
https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatrack…
) :
8. The registrar returns a 200 (OK) response. The response MUST contain Contact header
field values enumerating all current bindings.
We have a test case where for one single IMPU there are two different consecutive
REGISTER using different combination of IP/port.
Running our testcase on a version previous your commit, the 200OK of the second
registration lists 2 bindings (correctly, as we expect by the RFC). After your commit, in
this testcase, the 200OK lists only one binding. It seems that the changes in your commit
do not match the RFC specifications. Can you please explain why these changes have been
made?
Thanks and Kind Regards,
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flis
ts.kamailio.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsr-dev&data=05%7
C01%7Ctheodor.scherney%40kontron.com%7C500060a09bf447dadf3f08da4e2f98
b0%7C8c9d3c973fd941c8a2b1646f3942daf1%7C0%7C0%7C637908263631287730%7C
Unknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1
haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sKn1uNyrIob1Wda22ZmEvay
%2FnIk6hn7hQ6IzyBBDNyU%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flis
ts.kamailio.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsr-dev&data=05%7
C01%7Ctheodor.scherney%40kontron.com%7C500060a09bf447dadf3f08da4e2f98
b0%7C8c9d3c973fd941c8a2b1646f3942daf1%7C0%7C0%7C637908263631287730%7C
Unknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1
haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sKn1uNyrIob1Wda22ZmEvay
%2FnIk6hn7hQ6IzyBBDNyU%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist
s.kamailio.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsr-dev&data=05%7C0
1%7Ctheodor.scherney%40kontron.com%7C500060a09bf447dadf3f08da4e2f98b0%
7C8c9d3c973fd941c8a2b1646f3942daf1%7C0%7C0%7C637908263631287730%7CUnkn
own%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwi
LCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sKn1uNyrIob1Wda22ZmEvay%2FnIk
6hn7hQ6IzyBBDNyU%3D&reserved=0
12:48 p.m.
Hi,
Check this one d772f47ba196633c53504677103626ecc1904d54 from master.
On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 12:29 PM Scherney Theodor <
Theodor.Scherney(a)kontron.com> wrote:
Hi,
Thanks!
Can you please give me details about the commit, to fall back to that
changes.
BR
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: sr-dev <sr-dev-bounces(a)lists.kamailio.org> Im Auftrag von Ovidiu Sas
Gesendet: Dienstag, 14. Juni 2022 19:58
An: Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List <sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org>
Cc: Aleksandar Yosifov <alexyosifov(a)gmail.com>
Betreff: Re: [sr-dev] - ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK
[You don't often get email from osas(a)voipembedded.com. Learn why this is
important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
For greater flexibility, the option should not be a module param, instead
a flag for save, so the two options can be used simultaneously.
Also, all the functions provided by the ims_registrar_scscf should have
the "scscf_" prefix, just like the ims_registrar_pcscf module to avoid
overlapping with the generic registrar module.
-ovidiu
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 10:59 AM Aleksandar Yosifov <a.v.yosifov(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
--
VoIP Embedded, Inc.
https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.voipem…
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.kam…
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List
sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
Hi all,
The changes were made a long time ago. What I can say is that I confirm
with both
of you. I will add a new option and return the original behaviour
following the RFC.
BR
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 11:12 PM Henning Westerholt <hw(a)gilawa.com>
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I think you are right; a registrar should respond with multiple
bindings in
case of multiple bindings.
>
> There might be a good reason for this change, maybe Aleksandar can
comment.
> But with my current information I would say
it should be probably made
configurable; keeping the previous behaviour according
to the standard as
default.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Henning
>
> --
> Henning Westerholt -
> https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fska
> latan.de%2Fblog%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctheodor.scherney%40kontron.com%
> 7C500060a09bf447dadf3f08da4e2f98b0%7C8c9d3c973fd941c8a2b1646f3942daf1
> %7C0%7C0%7C637908263631287730%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjA
> wMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&a
> mp;sdata=UZfXR2G5v9MMjogqTCPes%2Blx%2FBTcJTrzA9082rIFv%2Fo%3D&res
> erved=0 Kamailio services -
> https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgil
> awa.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctheodor.scherney%40kontron.com%7C500060
> a09bf447dadf3f08da4e2f98b0%7C8c9d3c973fd941c8a2b1646f3942daf1%7C0%7C0
> %7C637908263631287730%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJ
> QIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata
> =yReM%2FnleLQ%2F6Ij2FVnI%2B3C8gmb7JYBjQRSw2OujcIeo%3D&reserved=0
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sr-dev <sr-dev-bounces(a)lists.kamailio.org> On Behalf Of
> Scherney Theodor
> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 9:34 AM
> To: sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org
> Subject: [sr-dev] - ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in
> 200OK
>
> Dear developer,
>
> we have a question about the reasons of the changes made in this
> commit to Kamailio module ims_registrar_scscf
>
> commit 23341c60519bd3e8eb91974c7aca0b283735665e
> Author: Aleksandar Yosifov alexyosifov(a)gmail.com
> Date: Thu May 7 15:51:34 2020 +0300
> ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK
> - Prevent sending of multiple contacts in 200OK reply
> for UE Re-Registration. Now S-CSCF replies with the
> exact contact for Re-Registration.
>
> We read in Section 10.3 "Processing REGISTER Requests" of the RFC3261 (
https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatrack…
) :
>
> 8. The registrar returns a 200 (OK) response. The response MUST
contain
Contact header field values enumerating all current bindings.
>
> We have a test case where for one single IMPU there are two different
consecutive REGISTER using different combination of IP/port.
> Running our testcase on a version previous
your commit, the 200OK of
the second registration lists 2 bindings (correctly, as
we expect by the
RFC). After your commit, in this testcase, the 200OK lists only one
binding. It seems that the changes in your commit do not match the RFC
specifications. Can you please explain why these changes have been made?
Thanks and Kind Regards,
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flis
ts.kamailio.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsr-dev&data=05%7
C01%7Ctheodor.scherney%40kontron.com%7C500060a09bf447dadf3f08da4e2f98
b0%7C8c9d3c973fd941c8a2b1646f3942daf1%7C0%7C0%7C637908263631287730%7C
Unknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1
haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sKn1uNyrIob1Wda22ZmEvay
%2FnIk6hn7hQ6IzyBBDNyU%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flis
ts.kamailio.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsr-dev&data=05%7
C01%7Ctheodor.scherney%40kontron.com%7C500060a09bf447dadf3f08da4e2f98
b0%7C8c9d3c973fd941c8a2b1646f3942daf1%7C0%7C0%7C637908263631287730%7C
Unknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1
haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sKn1uNyrIob1Wda22ZmEvay
%2FnIk6hn7hQ6IzyBBDNyU%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist
s.kamailio.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsr-dev&data=05%7C0
1%7Ctheodor.scherney%40kontron.com%7C500060a09bf447dadf3f08da4e2f98b0%
7C8c9d3c973fd941c8a2b1646f3942daf1%7C0%7C0%7C637908263631287730%7CUnkn
own%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwi
LCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sKn1uNyrIob1Wda22ZmEvay%2FnIk
6hn7hQ6IzyBBDNyU%3D&reserved=0
887
days inactive
897
days old
5 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Aleksandar Yosifov -
Henning Westerholt -
Ovidiu Sas -
Scherney Theodor